Speed Poll

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Wrong initial premise:

...

While peoples' choice is a combination of many factors, I would like to think that the popularity of the 35 / 2 IS over the other candidates is based on size, weight, price, and IS, and that these factors outweigh both speed and IQ since the 35 / 2 IS is "fast enough" and has IQ that is "good enough".

...

The 35IS IQ is good, not just "good enough". Why is that so dificult to fathom and accept?

In terms of speed, the 35 / 2 IS is a stop slower than the 35 / 1.4A and 35 / 1.4L II.  In terms of resolution, it's not as good as the 35 / 1.4A (until f/4, albeit pretty close by f/2.8), nor is it as good as the 35 / 1.4L II.  Specifically, at f/2, the 35 / 2 IS has almost a stop more vignetting than the 35 / 1.4A and 16% lower resolution in the center (but only 6% lower in the corners).

But, f/2 is "good enough" for many, if not most, the IQ is "good enough" for many, if not most, it has IS, is smaller, lighter, and costs less, making it the preferred choice for many. Why is that so difficult to fathom and accept?

Great Bustard wrote:

OK, we have the:

• Canon 35 / 1.4L II ($1799, 3.2 x 4.2 inches, 760g)
• Sigma 35 / 1.4A ($799, 3.1 x 4.8 inches, 665g)
• Canon 35 / 2 IS ($599, 3.1 x 2.5 inches, 335g)
• Tamron 35 / 1.8 VC ($599, 3.2 x 3.2 inches, 479g)

The current poll on 35mm lenses (which, unfortunately, did not include the Tamron since it was not announced at the time) shows 37% prefer the 35 / 2 IS, 20% the 35 / 1.4A, and 30% the 35 / 1.4L II.

While peoples' choice is a combination of many factors, I would like to think that the popularity of the 35 / 2 IS over the other candidates is based on size, weight, price, and IS, and that these factors outweigh both speed and IQ since the 35 / 2 IS is "fast enough" and has IQ that is "good enough".

So, with that in mind, I present a poll based on speed vs size, weight, cost, and IS.

Let's say Tamron's next lens is an 85 / 1.8 VC and Sigma's next lens is an 85 / 1.4A, and you are in the market for an 85mm prime. Let's further assume that the differences in size, weight, and price between the lenses is in the same proportion as with the 35 / 1.4A and 35 / 1.8 VC. Let's also assume that there is no significant difference in IQ stop-for-stop (e.g. wide open, the 85 / 1.8 VC may have "higher IQ' than the 85 / 1.4A, but both at f/1.8, the IQ is essentially the same).

Which would you choose? The 85 / 1.4A or 85 / 1.8 VC? Or would you choose faster still? The 85 / 1.2L II?

(P.S.: I am actually hopeful that Tamron might put out a 70 / 1.8 VC rather than an 85 / 1.8 VC.)

I went with the Sigma even though I think you over priced. Me wonders, sub-conscience rigging of the poll ?

cybersimba wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Wrong initial premise:

...

While peoples' choice is a combination of many factors, I would like to think that the popularity of the 35 / 2 IS over the other candidates is based on size, weight, price, and IS, and that these factors outweigh both speed and IQ since the 35 / 2 IS is "fast enough" and has IQ that is "good enough".

...

The 35IS IQ is good, not just "good enough". Why is that so dificult to fathom and accept?

In terms of speed, the 35 / 2 IS is a stop slower than the 35 / 1.4A and 35 / 1.4L II. In terms of resolution, it's not as good as the 35 / 1.4A (until f/4, albeit pretty close by f/2.8), nor is it as good as the 35 / 1.4L II. Specifically, at f/2, the 35 / 2 IS has almost a stop more vignetting than the 35 / 1.4A and 16% lower resolution in the center (but only 6% lower in the corners).

But, f/2 is "good enough" for many, if not most, the IQ is "good enough" for many, if not most, it has IS, is smaller, lighter, and costs less, making it the preferred choice for many. Why is that so difficult to fathom and accept?

I agree totally to one fact and if someone asks me what is the MOST appealing feature of 35 f2 IS for me then BIGGEST thing would be its size/weight that totally trumps all others. What I mean is people can pixel peep and go crazy about wanting to put 35 1.4 ART or 35 1.4 Canon higher than 35 f2 IS. But image quality, bokeh and sharpness 35 f2 IS provides for its size/weight - nothing trumps that. That is where Canon totally wins! That does not say that 35 f2 IS is any lesser than other 35mms. It all depends on types of pictures you compare. I am sure many would find pictures from 35 f2 IS that are so much better and unique than Sigma 35 ART and for Sigma's 1.4 aperture you shall find many more images that can prove, hey, 1.4 rocks than f2. But the point is 35 f2 IS remains unbeaten. And I did not even consider IS in all this. Which is an icing on a cake.

I seriously think that this is Canon's hidden L lens!

I have said many a time that more would be better served with the 35 / 2 IS than the 35 / 1.4A.  That said, Tamron's 35 / 1.8 VC seems like it will offer the better balance still.

johnierebel wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

OK, we have the:

• Canon 35 / 1.4L II ($1799, 3.2 x 4.2 inches, 760g)
• Sigma 35 / 1.4A ($799, 3.1 x 4.8 inches, 665g)
• Canon 35 / 2 IS ($599, 3.1 x 2.5 inches, 335g)
• Tamron 35 / 1.8 VC ($599, 3.2 x 3.2 inches, 479g)

The current poll on 35mm lenses (which, unfortunately, did not include the Tamron since it was not announced at the time) shows 37% prefer the 35 / 2 IS, 20% the 35 / 1.4A, and 30% the 35 / 1.4L II.

While peoples' choice is a combination of many factors, I would like to think that the popularity of the 35 / 2 IS over the other candidates is based on size, weight, price, and IS, and that these factors outweigh both speed and IQ since the 35 / 2 IS is "fast enough" and has IQ that is "good enough".

So, with that in mind, I present a poll based on speed vs size, weight, cost, and IS.

Let's say Tamron's next lens is an 85 / 1.8 VC and Sigma's next lens is an 85 / 1.4A, and you are in the market for an 85mm prime. Let's further assume that the differences in size, weight, and price between the lenses is in the same proportion as with the 35 / 1.4A and 35 / 1.8 VC. Let's also assume that there is no significant difference in IQ stop-for-stop (e.g. wide open, the 85 / 1.8 VC may have "higher IQ' than the 85 / 1.4A, but both at f/1.8, the IQ is essentially the same).

Which would you choose? The 85 / 1.4A or 85 / 1.8 VC? Or would you choose faster still? The 85 / 1.2L II?

(P.S.: I am actually hopeful that Tamron might put out a 70 / 1.8 VC rather than an 85 / 1.8 VC.)

I went with the Sigma even though I think you over priced.

Under-priced, and, apologies. I took the prices off the B&H site and accidentally used the 18-35 / 1.8 price which was just above the 35 / 1.4A price on the page (should have written $899 rather than $799 for the 35 / 1.4A).

Me wonders, sub-conscience rigging of the poll ?

Just an honest mistake. I'll PM a mod and see if they can fix it. Well, strike that -- all the mods listed for this forum don't seem to be here. Anyone know what's up with that?

Great Bustard wrote:

johnierebel wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

OK, we have the:

• Canon 35 / 1.4L II ($1799, 3.2 x 4.2 inches, 760g)
• Sigma 35 / 1.4A ($799, 3.1 x 4.8 inches, 665g)
• Canon 35 / 2 IS ($599, 3.1 x 2.5 inches, 335g)
• Tamron 35 / 1.8 VC ($599, 3.2 x 3.2 inches, 479g)

The current poll on 35mm lenses (which, unfortunately, did not include the Tamron since it was not announced at the time) shows 37% prefer the 35 / 2 IS, 20% the 35 / 1.4A, and 30% the 35 / 1.4L II.

While peoples' choice is a combination of many factors, I would like to think that the popularity of the 35 / 2 IS over the other candidates is based on size, weight, price, and IS, and that these factors outweigh both speed and IQ since the 35 / 2 IS is "fast enough" and has IQ that is "good enough".

So, with that in mind, I present a poll based on speed vs size, weight, cost, and IS.

Let's say Tamron's next lens is an 85 / 1.8 VC and Sigma's next lens is an 85 / 1.4A, and you are in the market for an 85mm prime. Let's further assume that the differences in size, weight, and price between the lenses is in the same proportion as with the 35 / 1.4A and 35 / 1.8 VC. Let's also assume that there is no significant difference in IQ stop-for-stop (e.g. wide open, the 85 / 1.8 VC may have "higher IQ' than the 85 / 1.4A, but both at f/1.8, the IQ is essentially the same).

Which would you choose? The 85 / 1.4A or 85 / 1.8 VC? Or would you choose faster still? The 85 / 1.2L II?

(P.S.: I am actually hopeful that Tamron might put out a 70 / 1.8 VC rather than an 85 / 1.8 VC.)

I went with the Sigma even though I think you over priced.

Under-priced, and, apologies. I took the prices off the B&H site and accidentally used the 18-35 / 1.8 price which was just above the 35 / 1.4A price on the page (should have written $899 rather than $799 for the 35 / 1.4A).

I was talking about your hypothetical 85mm1.4 A. Also I would think the canon 1.2 would be the largest & heavier.

Me wonders, sub-conscience rigging of the poll ?

Just an honest mistake. I'll PM a mod and see if they can fix it. Well, strike that -- all the mods listed for this forum don't seem to be here. Anyone know what's up with that?

johnierebel wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

johnierebel wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

OK, we have the:

• Canon 35 / 1.4L II ($1799, 3.2 x 4.2 inches, 760g)
• Sigma 35 / 1.4A ($799, 3.1 x 4.8 inches, 665g)
• Canon 35 / 2 IS ($599, 3.1 x 2.5 inches, 335g)
• Tamron 35 / 1.8 VC ($599, 3.2 x 3.2 inches, 479g)

The current poll on 35mm lenses (which, unfortunately, did not include the Tamron since it was not announced at the time) shows 37% prefer the 35 / 2 IS, 20% the 35 / 1.4A, and 30% the 35 / 1.4L II.

While peoples' choice is a combination of many factors, I would like to think that the popularity of the 35 / 2 IS over the other candidates is based on size, weight, price, and IS, and that these factors outweigh both speed and IQ since the 35 / 2 IS is "fast enough" and has IQ that is "good enough".

So, with that in mind, I present a poll based on speed vs size, weight, cost, and IS.

Let's say Tamron's next lens is an 85 / 1.8 VC and Sigma's next lens is an 85 / 1.4A, and you are in the market for an 85mm prime. Let's further assume that the differences in size, weight, and price between the lenses is in the same proportion as with the 35 / 1.4A and 35 / 1.8 VC. Let's also assume that there is no significant difference in IQ stop-for-stop (e.g. wide open, the 85 / 1.8 VC may have "higher IQ' than the 85 / 1.4A, but both at f/1.8, the IQ is essentially the same).

Which would you choose? The 85 / 1.4A or 85 / 1.8 VC? Or would you choose faster still? The 85 / 1.2L II?

(P.S.: I am actually hopeful that Tamron might put out a 70 / 1.8 VC rather than an 85 / 1.8 VC.)

I went with the Sigma even though I think you over priced.

Under-priced, and, apologies. I took the prices off the B&H site and accidentally used the 18-35 / 1.8 price which was just above the 35 / 1.4A price on the page (should have written $899 rather than $799 for the 35 / 1.4A).

I was talking about your hypothetical 85mm1.4 A.

Ah. I priced it along the lines of $200 increments -- 35 / 1.4A for $799, 50 / 1.4A for $999, 85 / 1.4A for $1199. So, I would amend that to: 35 / 1.4A for $899, 50 / 1.4A for $949, and the 85 / 1.4A for $999, which prices the 85 / 1.4A even lower still. Of course, who knows what it will really cost or how big and heavy it will be.

Also I would think the canon 1.2 would be the largest & heavier.

The 50 / 1.4A is larger and heavier than the 50 / 1.2L and the Sigma 35 / 1.4A is larger and heavier than the 35 / 1.4L (but the 35 / 1.4L II is heavier, though not larger).